Explore the vast range of titles available.

In patients with metastatic colon cancer, fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan plus bevacizumab, as compared with fluorouracil and irinotecan plus bevacizumab, improved progression-free and overall survival, with an increase in some side effects.

In the TRIBE study, FOLFOXIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan) plus bevacizumab significantly improved progression-free survival of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer compared with FOLFIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan) plus bevacizumab. In this updated analysis, we aimed to provide mature results for overall survival—a secondary endpoint—and report treatment efficacy in RAS and BRAF molecular subgroups. TRIBE was an open-label, multicentre, phase 3 randomised study of patients (aged 18–70 years with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group [ECOG] performance status of 2 or less and aged 71–75 years with an ECOG performance status of 0) with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer who were recruited from 34 Italian oncology units. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a web-based procedure to receive FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab or FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab. Bevacizumab was given as a 5 mg/kg intravenous dose. FOLFIRI consisted of a 180 mg/m2 intravenous infusion of irinotecan for 60 min followed by a 200 mg/m2 intravenous infusion of leucovorin for 120 min, a 400 mg/m2 intravenous bolus of fluorouracil, and a 2400 mg/m2 continuous infusion of fluorouracil for 46 h. FOLFOXIRI consisted of a 165 mg/m2 intravenous infusion of irinotecan for 60 min, followed by an 85 mg/m2 intravenous infusion of oxaliplatin given concurrently with 200 mg/m2 leucovorin for 120 min, followed by a 3200 mg/m2 continuous infusion of fluorouracil for 48 h. Tissue samples for RAS and BRAF mutational status analyses were centrally collected. In this updated analysis, we assessed the secondary endpoint of overall survival in the main cohort and treatment efficacy in RAS and BRAF molecular subgroups. All analyses were by intention to treat. TRIBE was concluded on Nov 30, 2014. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00719797. Between July 17, 2008, and May 31, 2011, 508 patients were randomly assigned. At a median follow-up of 48·1 months (IQR 41·7–55·6), median overall survival was 29·8 months (95% CI 26·0–34·3) in the FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab group compared with 25·8 months (22·5–29·1) in the FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·80, 95% CI 0·65–0·98; p=0·03). Median overall survival was 37·1 months (95% CI 29·7–42·7) in the RAS and BRAF wild-type subgroup compared with 25·6 months (22·4–28·6) in the RAS-mutation-positive subgroup (HR 1·49, 95% CI 1·11–1·99) and 13·4 months (8·2–24·1) in the BRAF-mutation-positive subgroup (HR 2·79, 95% CI 1·75–4·46; likelihood-ratio test p<0·0001). Treatment effect was not significantly different across molecular subgroups (pinteraction=0·52). FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab is a feasible treatment option for those patients who meet the inclusion criteria of the present study, irrespective of baseline clinical characteristics and RAS or BRAF mutational status. GONO (Gruppo Oncologico del Nord Ovest) Cooperative Group and ARCO Foundation.

We present an updated analysis on the incidence of primary brain tumors in the Metropolitan Area of Genova, the capital of the northwestern Italian region Liguria. The number of cases and incidence rates for all malignant brain tumors, glioblastoma, malignant brain tumors other than glioblastoma, and brain tumors not otherwise specified were calculated for each of seven three-year and one-eighth four-year periods in which the quarter century 1993–2017 was divided. The rates were age-adjusted (AAR) using the 2013 European standard population, presented per 100,000 person-years and the average percentage change over the three-year period was calculated. The number of cases of all malignant brain tumors and glioblastoma was higher in males than in females in each three-year period and in the entire quarter century 1993–2017. During the latter, the average three-year percentage change in AARs for all brain tumors was minimal [0.6 (95% C.I. = -1.0/2.1) %] while for glioblastoma there was a change of 5.3 (95% C.I. = -0.4/11.3) %. The partially concurrent decline in the incidence rates of malignant brain tumors other than glioblastoma or not otherwise specified suggests that the observed increase in the incidence rate of glioblastoma during 1993–2017 may have been at least partially linked to the improvement during the same period in sensitivity and specificity of the diagnosis of glioblastoma, depleting the reservoirs of other malignant or unspecified brain tumors. Research into possibly increased environmental risk factors (e.g., population exposure to ionizing radiation) for glioblastoma in Genova remains warranted.

There is a preclinical rationale for inhibiting angiogenesis in mesothelioma. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of the anti-VEGFR-2 antibody ramucirumab combined with gemcitabine in patients with pretreated malignant pleural mesothelioma. RAMES was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial done at 26 hospitals in Italy. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0–2, and histologically proven malignant pleural mesothelioma progressing during or after first-line treatment with pemetrexed plus platinum. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks plus either intravenous placebo (gemcitabine plus placebo group) or ramucirumab 10 mg/kg (gemcitabine plus ramucirumab group) on day 1 every 3 weeks, until tumour progression or unacceptable toxicity. Central randomisation was done according to a minimisation algorithm method, associated with a random element using the following stratification factors: ECOG performance status, age, histology, and first-line time-to-progression. The primary endpoint was overall survival, measured from the date of randomisation to the date of death from any cause. Efficacy analyses were assessed in all patients who had been correctly randomised and received their allocated treatment, and safety analyses were assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of their assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03560973, and with EudraCT, 2016-001132-36. Between Dec 22, 2016, and July 30, 2018, of 165 patients enrolled 161 were correctly assigned and received either gemcitabine plus placebo (n=81) or gemcitabine plus ramucirumab (n=80). At database lock (March 8, 2020), with a median follow-up of 21·9 months (IQR 17·7–28·5), overall survival was longer in the ramucirumab group (HR 0·71, 70% CI 0·59–0·85; p=0·028). Median overall survival was 13·8 months (70% CI 12·7–14·4) in the gemcitabine plus ramucirumab group and 7·5 months (6·9–8·9) in the gemcitabine plus placebo group. Grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 35 (44%) of 80 patients in the gemcitabine plus ramucirumab group and 24 (30%) of 81 in the gemcitabine plus placebo group. The most common treatment-related grade 3–4 adverse events were neutropenia (16 [20%] for gemcitabine plus ramucirumab vs ten [12%] for gemcitabine plus placebo) and hypertension (five [6%] vs none). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in five (6%) in the gemcitabine plus ramucirumab group and in four (5%) patients in the gemcitabine plus placebo group; the most common was thromboembolism (three [4%] for gemcitabine plus ramucirumab vs two [2%] for gemcitabine plus placebo). There were no treatment-related deaths. Ramucirumab plus gemcitabine significantly improved overall survival after first-line standard chemotherapy, with a favourable safety profile. This combination could be a new option in this setting. Eli Lilly Italy. For the Italian translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Background Despite sensitivity to first-line chemotherapy, most small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients relapse. In this setting, topotecan demonstrated modest activity with significant toxicity. Paclitaxel was also active. This study was designed to evaluate activity and safety of nab-paclitaxel in relapsed SCLC. Methods In this multicentre prospective Phase 2 trial, patients with refractory or sensitive SCLC progressed to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy received nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/smq on days 1, 8, 15 every 4 weeks up to six cycles, progressive disease or intolerable toxicity. Primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective tumour response. Secondary endpoints were toxicity, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results Of the 68 patients treated, partial response was 8% in the refractory cohort and 14% in the sensitive cohort. Most common toxicities of any grade were fatigue (54%), anaemia (38%), neutropenia (29%), leukopenia (26%) and diarrhoea (21%). Median PFS was similar in both refractory (1.8 months) and sensitive cohorts (1.9 months), while median OS was longer in sensitive one (6.6 versus 3.6 months). Conclusions Although nab-paclitaxel has shown some modest anti-tumour activity in relapsed SCLC, associated with a favourable toxicity profile, the primary end-point of the study was not met. Clinical Trial registration Clinical Trial registration number is ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03219762.

Background Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) reported remarkable achievements in several solid tumours. However, in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) promising results are limited to patients with deficient mismatch repair/microsatellite instability-high (dMMR/MSI-high) tumours due to their immune-enriched microenvironment. Combining cytotoxic agents and bevacizumab in mCRC with proficient mismatch repair/microsatellite stability (pMMR/MSS) could make ICIs efficacious by increasing the exposure of neoantigens, especially with highly active chemotherapy regimens, inducing immunogenic cell death, increasing the tumoral infiltration of CD8+ T-cells and reducing tumour-associated myeloid-derived suppressor cells. VEGF-blockade also plays an immunomodulatory role by inhibiting the expansion of T regulatory lymphocytes. Consistently with this rationale, a phase Ib study combined the anti-PDL-1 atezolizumab with FOLFOX/bevacizumab as first-line treatment of mCRC, irrespective of microsatellite status, and reported interesting activity and efficacy results, without safety concerns. Phase III trials led to identify FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab as an upfront therapeutic option in selected mCRC patients. Drawing from these considerations, the combination of atezolizumab with an intensified upfront treatment (FOLFOXIRI) and bevacizumab could be worthy of investigation. Methods AtezoTRIBE is a prospective, open label, phase II, comparative trial in which initially unresectable and previously untreated mCRC patients, irrespective of microsatellite status, are randomized in a 1:2 ratio to receive up to 8 cycles of FOLFOXIRI/bevacizumab alone or in combination with atezolizumab, followed by maintenance with bevacizumab plus 5-fluoruracil/leucovorin with or without atezolizumab according to treatment arm until disease progression. The primary endpoint is PFS. Assuming a median PFS of 12 months for standard arm, 201 patients should be randomized in a 1:2 ratio to detect a hazard ratio of 0.66 in favour of the experimental arm. A safety run-in phase including the first 6 patients enrolled in the FOLFOXIRI/bevacizumab/atezolizumab arm was planned, and no unexpected adverse events or severe toxicities were highlighted by the Safety Monitoring Committee. Discussion The AtezoTRIBE study aims at assessing whether the addition of atezolizumab to an intensified chemotherapy plus bevacizumab might be an efficacious upfront strategy for the treatment of mCRC, irrespective of the microsatellite status. Trial registration AtezoTRIBE is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT03721653 ), October 26th, 2018 and at EUDRACT (2017–000977-35), Februray 28th, 2017 .

Background Chronic subdural hematoma (cSDH) is a common neurosurgical condition that is prevalent in elderly patients. There are no well-defined guidelines for cSDH and management strategies vary widely among physicians and institutions, and this variability is expressed in the literature. In general, conservative management is reserved to patients who are asymptomatic or have minor symptoms with mild mass effect. Spontaneous resolution of cSDH is an unusual phenomenon and middle meningeal artery (MMA) embolization seems to reduce the recurrence and progression rate of SDH compared to conventional treatments in multiple cohort studies. A randomized controlled trial is warranted to determine the effectiveness and safety of endovascular embolization for cSDH and whether MMA embolization is superior to conservative management in reducing the progression rate and surgical rescue event. Methods This is an Italian multicenter prospective randomized clinical trial with open-label treatment and blinded outcome assessment (PROBE design) to assess the superiority of MMA embolization compared to conservative treatment. A total of 300 patients are planned to be randomized 1:1 to receive MMA embolization (intervention) or conventional treatments (control). The primary outcome is the treatment arm failure which is defined as a composite of incomplete hematoma resolution or surgical rescue within 6 months follow-up. Incomplete hematoma resolution is defined as a reduction of the cSDH thickness ≤50% at follow-up compared to the hematoma thickness measured at the time of randomization. Surgical rescue is intended as hematoma removal for relief or symptoms that developed with continuous growth of the cSDH. In case of bilateral cSDH, the treatment failure occurred when primary outcomes criteria are satisfied for at least one of the two hematomas. Discussion This multi-centre randomized controlled trial is needed to evaluate the benefit-to-risk ratio of primary embolization of the MMA to facilitate resolution and prevent rescue surgical evacuation of cSDH. If MMA embolization turns out to be superior to conservative management in this trial, this may prompt further confirmatory trials and, at best, may change clinical practice and guideline recommendations. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov. Identifier: NCT06274580, Registered on 6 February 2024. This protocol was developed in accordance with the SPIRIT Checklist and by use of the structured study protocol template provided by BMC Trials.

Patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HC) are reported to have a mortality rate of about 1.0% per year, and those patients without sudden death risk factors and with no or mild symptoms are generally considered to have a benign clinical presentation. However, the risk of sudden death and the outcome in this latter subgroup have not been investigated systematically and remain unresolved. We assessed the risk of sudden death and outcome in 653 consecutive patients with HC without risk factors and with no or mild symptoms. Over a median follow-up of 5.3 years, 35 patients (5.4%) died of HC-related causes. Mean age at death was 46 ± 20 years in patients who died suddenly and 66 ± 15 and 72 ± 9 years, respectively, in patients who died of heart failure or stroke. Event rate was 0.6% per year for sudden death, 0.2% per year for heart failure death, and 0.1% per year for stroke-related death. Sudden death risk was independently and inversely related to age, and risk of heart failure or stroke death was directly related to age (p = 0.020). At 10 years after the initial evaluation, sudden death risk was 5.9%, with sudden death rate being the lowest (0.3% per year) in patients with normal left atrial dimension (≤40 mm). In conclusion, in patients with HC without conventional risk factors and with no or mild symptoms, the risk of sudden death was not negligible, with an event rate of 0.6% per year. Heart failure and stroke-related death were less common and largely confined to older patients. These results underscore the need for a more accurate assessment of the sudden death risk in patients with HC.

Currently, there is limited data regarding the effectiveness of standard subsequent line therapies such as endocrine therapy, chemotherapy, or targeted agents after progression on CDK4/6 inhibitor-based regimens. This paper describes time-to-treatment failure beyond progression on palbociclib or palbociclib+endocrine therapy in patients enrolled in the phase II, multicenter TREnd trial. Our results indicate that there is limited benefit from post-palbociclib treatment, regardless of the type of therapy received. A small population of long responders were identified who demonstrated ongoing benefit from a subsequent line of endocrine therapy after progression to palbociclib-based regimens. A translational research program is ongoing on this population of outliers.